Purifying Sacred Vessels

[paperwight66]

Here in the UK, it is common for EMHCs to both consume any Precious Blood remaining, and also to purify the vessels.

Geography most certainly comes into it, as with many other matters asked about on these boards - Holy Days of Obligation, for instance.

You must remember that most posters here live in the US, and don’t always realise that other countries have different rules.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Here in the UK, it is common for EMHCs to both consume any Precious Blood remaining, and also to purify the vessels.

Geography most certainly comes into it, as with many other matters asked about on these boards - Holy Days of Obligation, for instance.

You must remember that most posters here live in the US, and don’t always realise that other countries have different rules.

I’m indeed aware of that, particularly since I’m an American myself. I often state off the bat that I’m not in the US but failed to this time. Dropped the ball on this one. My bad. Apologies again. :imsorry:

 

[Phemie]

Here in the UK, it is common for EMHCs to both consume any Precious Blood remaining, and also to purify the vessels.

Geography most certainly comes into it, as with many other matters asked about on these boards - Holy Days of Obligation, for instance.

You must remember that most posters here live in the US, and don’t always realise that other countries have different rules.

Just because it’s common doesn’t mean that the permission is there for it to be done.

Our Pastor in 2004, who was also our diocese’s Vicar General, once told me that Canadian Bishops allowed EMHCs to purify vessels based on the indult that the US had been granted, Canada having neither requested nor been granted such indult. He started purifying the vessels himself the day after Redemptionis Sacramentum was published. He left our parish for health reasons a few months later and his successor categorically refused to purify the vessels, telling the EMHCs that it was their job.

Our present Pastor purifies all the vessels himself. At Sunday Mass that means 3 chalices and a ciborium. It takes very little time and most people are still praying when he goes to sit down.

I can’t imagine that Rome would categorically deny the US bishops’ request for a continuation of the indult but grant an indult to another country.

 

[Gorgias]

It takes about a minute or so per chalice to wipe them both inside and out - so five chalices = five minutes.

You’ve got a slow priest, then. It can take perhaps 15-20 seconds, so five chalices can take a minute or two.

The GIRM does not allow the consumption of any remaining precious blood do be done by extraordinary ministers (except instituted acolytes).

The GIRM might not, but please read the norms for distribution in the U.S., at the USCCB site. At this page, paragraph 52 states, “When there are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with permission of the Diocesan Bishop.”

 

[Brendan]

The GIRM does not allow the consumption of any remaining precious blood do be done by extraordinary ministers (except instituted acolytes). .

Redemptionis Sacramentum DOES allow for it, or more specifically, allows for a Bishop’s Conference to permit it.

[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a *latae sententiae *excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.[194] To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species. Anyone, therefore, who acts contrary to these norms, for example casting the sacred species into the sacrarium or in an unworthy place or on the ground, incurs the penalties laid down.[195] Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed, and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another ministeraccording to the norms,, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.

However, as John noted earlier, Redemptionis Sacramentum 119 allows only for ordained clergy and instituted acolytes to purify vessels, and make for no allowance for Bishop’s Conferences to grant indults.

 

[Benedict_MAC]

Under all normal circumstances, I would agree with most of what has been said here. The problem comes when you have a retired priest helping out that is almost 87 years old and he doesn’t move all that easily anymore. Indult or not, there are circumstances that require careful and prayerful consideration. After all of this, this morning Fr. Lickteig was not well this morning and could barely hold the chalice without spilling it. I don’t think these type of circumstances allow for complete disregard for legitimate authority, but LOVE which was his “point.”

I apologize for drudging up a heated topic. I would not ordinarily take it upon myself to do these things, when I realize that I don’t have the proper permission. That said, if I don’t do it, it will likely be done by someone else without permission whom I do not believe will do it with an appropriate amount of reverence. As you may or may not have read in my signature line, I am currently applying for the diaconate program in our archdiocese, and although that doesn’t really mean anything in this regard, people see me as an “acolyte.” While I am WELL aware that this does not make it so, I don’t want to go scandalizing people and chasing people away. I am trying to correct what is wrong, and transition things with charity! Just walking away and raising a stink about it wouldn’t be very charitable.

 

[TimothyH]

The point is though, that it is NOT a case of obedience. Aquinas defined the virtue of Obedience as the virtue by which we conform our will to the will of the one with authority.

The authority in this matter is with the Holy See, not with the priest. It would not be a virtuous act then, to conform one’s will to the will of the one who is, in fact, being disobedient to the correct authority.

Actually the reverse is true, it would involve the willing participation in the vice of disobedience.

Using your logic, the only solution is to quit.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan]

Using your logic, the only solution is to quit.

-Tim-

Pretty much.

It is better than participating in disobedience to the Church.

(and the logic is Aquinas’, not mine. I make no claim to be as brilliant as he is)

 

[Brendan]

Under all normal circumstances, I would agree with most of what has been said here. The problem comes when you have a retired priest helping out that is almost 87 years old and he doesn’t move all that easily anymore. Indult or not, there are circumstances that require careful and prayerful consideration. After all of this, this morning Fr. Lickteig was not well this morning and could barely hold the chalice without spilling it. I don’t think these type of circumstances allow for complete disregard for legitimate authority, but LOVE which was his “point.”

Has been any though to reducing the number of vessels, such as the offering of Holy Communion under a single species.

The Vatican recommended that the US Bishops in such cases, and it would seem that their recommendations would be universal in that matter.

Another solution would be for the bishop to install Acolytes in the parish to assist. That was the intent of Pope Paul when he suppressed the Subdiaconate in favor of a lay role. Unfortunately, too many bishops have elected not to follow the Pope’s intent and continue to restrict this role to seminarians.

I apologize for drudging up a heated topic. I.

Don’t worry about it, debate is a fine Catholic hobby

 

[Benedict_MAC]

Another solution would be for the bishop to install Acolytes in the parish to assist. That was the intent of Pope Paul when he suppressed the Subdiaconate in favor of a lay role. Unfortunately, too many bishops have elected not to follow the Pope’s intent and continue to restrict this role to seminarians.

I completely agree here!

 

[godisgood77]

Thanks for the advice! He didn’t exactly refuse, but he gave me a long lecture about how ridiculous it is to be caught up with rules when that misses the point. He was very frustrated, and said that he would leave it up to me, but I couldn’t just leave them there while he goes out to greet people after Mass, so I did the purification before I left. I am afraid that I am going to get the same reaction from my Pastor, and that is why it will be a few days, because I need to actually talk to him rather than use email. They are both going to be leaving at the end of next month, as our Pastor has been reassigned, and I am hesitant to “rock the boat” right before they leave. Perhaps it is better to merely take this up with the new Pastor in July.

I think your priest is right and that obedience would be the appropriate action. We are after all talking about washing the cup.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Pretty much.

It is better than participating in disobedience to the Church.

(and the logic is Aquinas’, not mine. I make no claim to be as brilliant as he is)

I can’t disagree with this, and yet I still don’t think it’s necessarily the right course of action in all instances. If a person in this situation quits, there is no opportunity to be part of the solution. At least by staying, a sacristan in disagreement with parochial procedure could have some measure of influence in minimizing the effects of the disobedience and might even be able to eliminate the abuses eventually.

Without getting into the details of it, when I first became a sacristan I witnessed a lot of abuse. I aired my concerns to the pastor; this accomplished little other than earning myself a lot of enemies (note: the pastor was and is not one of them). Nevertheless, I stayed and did the best I could with it. Once I was appointed head sacristan, I then had the authority to correct most of these problems. Had I not stuck around, I would never have had the opportunity to do so.

 

[Benedict_MAC]

I can’t disagree with this, and yet I still don’t think it’s necessarily the right course of action in all instances. If a person in this situation quits, there is no opportunity to be part of the solution. At least by staying, a sacristan in disagreement with parochial procedure could have some measure of influence in minimizing the effects of the disobedience and might even be able to eliminate the abuses eventually.

Without getting into the details of it, when I first became a sacristan I witnessed a lot of abuse. I aired my concerns to the pastor; this accomplished little other than earning myself a lot of enemies (note: the pastor was and is not one of them). Nevertheless, I stayed and did the best I could with it. Once I was appointed head sacristan, I then had the authority to correct most of these problems. Had I not stuck around, I would never have had the opportunity to do so.

This is exactly my point. So far, I have only had opportunity to discuss this with the associate pastor…maybe I forgot to mention to start with that he is actually a retired 87 year old priest that helps daily. I brought it to him yesterday and it upset him, and this morning he was very out of sorts (ill). My primary concern was for his health. I’m hoping to get the opportunity to talk to the Pastor this evening or first thing tomorrow. As I said, I would like to use as much charity as possible.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thank you for posting this. I was unaware that an indult is required to allow purification of the vessels by the laity.

In light of this, I feel the need to clarify my position as stated above: I am in France. The sacristan’s manual to which I referred above bears the archbishop’s seal, so while I don’t have concrete evidence the indult has been granted to France I will assume the best possibility. I doubt an archbishop would so publicly approve a practice that is actually forbidden (though I leave room in the universe for that being the case).

A few months ago a newly-ordained permanent deacon asked me why I couldn’t purify the vessels myself. My pastor is adamant that only priests, deacons and instituted acolytes can purify and that I should do it only if they all “forget” and leave me alone with a stack of unpurified liturgical vessels. So that’s what I go with. But again, being in France the rules may be different here than they are elsewhere.

Sorry for any confusion my response may have caused. I didn’t know geography has a role in this.

The indult for the US had been granted for a period of three years, if memory serves me correctly. I don’t see anything in the answer to the request for renewal that indicates that permission would be appropriate elsewhere when it was not granted in the US. There could easily be liturgical books in the US similar to the one you are referring to without any bishop having done a thing that was wrong. In other words: Your archbishop, the chief liturgist in your diocese, may have written a liturgical book in keeping with all obedience to the Holy See at the time he wrote it, but it may be dated now or the change in permission might have honestly escaped notice of the editors when the book was last published. A book like that has a thousand little details to look for.

As you say, though, if you are left with vessels to wash that have not been purified, there is not much you can do. Since it is possible for the Holy See to grant permission for this, you are not attempting something that by its nature is forbidden for you to attempt but rather doing a task that the Holy See wants to be reserved for the clergy for a good reason. When there is a compelling reason to do what you have good reason to believe you’d be permitted to do because the urgency of the circumstances required it, I would say to follow what seems to be the best option open to you with a good conscience and then seek verification for your choice at your first opportunity, so you will have that guidance in the future.

Since you have clear instructions from your pastor that he wants the clergy doing it in his parish and not the laity, I would explain the situation to him and ask the pastor whether or not he wants to know when the other members of the clergy leave this task to you or whether you should just go ahead and purify the vessels and say nothing to him about it. Do whatever he says.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is exactly my point. So far, I have only had opportunity to discuss this with the associate pastor…maybe I forgot to mention to start with that he is actually a retired 87 year old priest that helps daily. I brought it to him yesterday and it upset him, and this morning he was very out of sorts (ill). My primary concern was for his health. I’m hoping to get the opportunity to talk to the Pastor this evening or first thing tomorrow. As I said, I would like to use as much charity as possible.

I can easily see that your pastor might want you to tell him when one of the younger clergy fail to purify the vessels, but to go along and not upset an elderly priest who directs you to do it. I can also see the pastor taking the stance that he is the chief liturgist in his parish, he is the one ultimately responsible to the bishop about how liturgies are conducted there, and he is not going to allow an exception even to a brother priest who is many years his senior.

Allow your pastor to choose these battles; that is his role. This is a matter for which permission is theoretically possible, not a matter concerning something that is a liturgical abuse everywhere and at all times. On that account, once you have made a good-faith effort to raise the question and have a direct order to act in some certain way, then just do what the pastor of the parish says to do.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Perhaps it is better to merely take this up with the new Pastor in July.

Since you have been making a good faith effort to be obedient to all the different directions you’re getting from the clergy, I think your archbishop is likely to find this a sensible and understandable course of action. He would not criticize you for continuing to ask about whether you are doing your duties according to the wishes of the Holy See, but I doubt he would criticize you for postponing the question for such a short amount of time, either. I think he would see it as too bad that you were put into such a confusing situation in the first place.

 

[DCNBILL]

Are preist allways purify the scareed vessels wilse saying this prayer while purifying the vessels: “What has passed our lips as food, O Lord, may we possess in purity of heart, that what has been given to us in time may be our healing for eternity.”

As does the deacon.